Man with no money loses bid to appeal sequestration order
An appeal during which a man and his family tried to stop Standard Bank sequestrating him failed because he himself admitted he had no money.
Image: File
An appeal during which a man and his family tried to stop Standard Bank from sequestrating him failed because he himself admitted he had no money.
A six-year-old legal battle has ended for Bulelani Bangani and the Bangani Family Trust, and not on a high note.
The appellants were trying to get a September 2024 ruling that they be placed into sequestration reversed, but lost because they had no money – a statement with which the High Court in Pietermaritzburg concurred.
In the September 2024 judgment, the family was “effectively and finally” sequestrated. This affected Bangani’s estate and that of the Bangani Family Trust.
The case stems from Standard Bank winning a ruling that the family should pay R2.15 million as well as "R6.37 million with interest" to the bank.
During the hearing, it emerged that the sheriff was unable to serve the summons, with Bangani telling him that the trust has no money in liquid cash to settle the amount demanded”.
One of the grounds of appeal the family made was that they had told the court when they were sequestrated that they had “sufficient assets to satisfy the warrant of execution”.
However, the court noted that Bangani himself “told the sheriff that the trust had no money to satisfy the debt, and he did not indicate that there were other assets which could be realised towards the settlement of the debt owed to Standard Bank”.
Judge Ncube also threw out some of the grounds the family brought up as reasons for an appeal hearing. The judgment reads that ground one “is vague and does not make sense. The ground is considered and dismissed.”
Initially, Bangani raised five grounds of appeal, but “withdrew the fourth ground, and he abandoned ground number five,” said Judge Ncube.
Judge Ncube stressed that “there must be a sound rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal”.
Yet, the judge found there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and there are no compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.
With the dismissal of the appeal, the judge also ordered the Bangani family to pay costs.
IOL BUSINESS